Gun Rights Policy Conference this weekend

Posted by David Hardy · 22 September 2008 11:59 AM

Here are the details. It's being held in Phoenix, and speakers include Bob Barr, Alan Gura, David Kopel, Alan Korwin, David E. Young, and your humble servant. David Young will be bringing his latest book, and I'll be bringing my documentary, for a bit of marketing.

UPDATE: I rec'd the agenda about four minutes ago, and have pasted it in extended remarks below.

7:00–10:00 p.m. Buffet Reception with Cash Bar
Co-hosted by National Rifle Association and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Landis Aden, president, Arizona State Rifle Association
Arizona State Representative John Kavanaugh (R-Scottsdale)
Sydney Hay (R) - State Mining Association Executive Director, candidate for First Congressional District

10:30 a.m. United Nations and International Affairs Briefing
Mark Barnes, Esq., counsel to Firearms Importers Roundtable (FAIR)
Tony Bernardo, executive director, Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA)
David Kopel, Esq., author and research director, The Independence Institute
Howard Nemerov, author and blogger
11:15 a.m. Questions and Answers on Federal, State and International Lawmaking

11:30 a.m. Special Address
Arizona State Senate President Timothy S. Bee, candidate for Congress in the Eighth Congressional District

11:45 a.m. Recess and break to prepare for box luncheon

Noon Awards Lunch
Hosted by Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Foundation
Alan Gura, Esq., counsel of record, D.C. v. Heller and attorney for plaintiffs in McDonald et al., v. City of Chicago
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), surrogate for Presidential Candidate John McCain
David Schweikert (R), Maricopa County Treasurer, candidate for Fifth Congressional District

1:30 p.m. Recess

1:45 p.m. Intellectual Ammunition
John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns and Straight Shooting

3:30p.m. Concealed Carry on Campus: The New Battleground
Michael Fancher Arizona State University leader, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Michael Guzman, Texas State University, president, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Katie Kasprzak, public relations director, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

4:30 p.m. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrines
Robert Corbin, Esq., past-president NRA, former Arizona Attorney General
Dave Workman, senior editor, The New Gun Week
David Young, historian and author of The Founding Fathers View of the Second Amendment

6:30-9:30 p.m. Reception with Cash Bar—Phoenix Ballroom
Hosted by National Shooting Sports Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation
Entertainment by the Cartridge Family band
Speaker: Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for President

Just don't open carry...you're likely to be asked to either cover up or remove your firearm to the parking lot. Of course, if a possible scheduled guest actually shows up, then nobody gets to carry. That's all I am saying....

Alan Gottlied of the Second Amendment Foundation will have me arrested if I attend any of their annual Conferences! Why? Because I filed a lawsuit against the NRA and SAF for their failure to live up to their Mission Statements.

The NRA and the Alan Gottlieb's Second Amendment Foundation do not live up to their Mission Statements when they refuse to help in any way a Second Amendment case for National Open Carry Handgun, the Holy Grail of gun rights, from a U.S. merchant seaman's point of view because their political and financial existence are dependent upon a vibrant anti-Second Amendment front.

I have pushed my seaman's case for the Second Amendment while in intrastate, interstate, and maritime travel (inland, intercoastal, and offshore waters).

The world does not revolve around the NRA or SAF. We cannot wait for the NRA or SAF to decide when a Second Amendment case for national open carry is ready for federal litigation.

I have prepared THE perfect Second Amendment case for national open carry. And yet the NRA and SAF refuse to lift a finger (other than to give me the finger) to at the least publish alerts acknowledging the existence of my Second Amendment case!

I AM THE FIRST ONE to use the HELLER opinion as evidence in an international human rights case, my own, at the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IACHR) (Hamrick v. United States, Petition No. 1142-06) for 6 years of denials of my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial over the Second Amendment.

Why does the NRA and SAF refuse to initiate a lawsuit against the governors of the 50 States under the EX PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE for the rights of third parties under the JUS TERTII DOCTRINE for national open carry handgun instead of pushing their sacred cow for National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry? Because if they win National Open Carry the will destroy the need for a national organization to defend your rights.

My forthcoming 625-page lawsuit is ready for printing, copying, and binding but I am flat broke after 6 years of federal litigation as an unrepresented civil plaintiff.

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund only accepts applications from ATTORNEYS. Anyone who cannot afford an attorney are simply out of luck with the NRA. I guess the NRA does not care about Second Amendment rights of the poor American.

My forthcoming lawsuit invokes the JUS TERTII DOCTRINE for the Second Amendment rights of third parties (YOU PEOPLE OF AMERICA) as a JUS COGEN human right being an ERGA OMNES obligation under internatinal human rights treaties and under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For $800 donation or short-term loan in can get my lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for DC. For $3,000 donation or short term loan I can prepare my lawsuit to include the governors of the 50 States under the EX PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE. This is a "put your money where your mouth is" challenge to all Second Amendment proponents on the question, "What did you do for freedom today?"

I AM FACING THREAT OF ARREST BY US MARSHALS SERVICE

Federal judges of the DC Circuit (including Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court when he was a judge at the DC Circuit) and the US District Court in Littie Rock, Arkansas have extorted a total of $1,465.00 (18 U.S.C. § 872 and racketeering through extortion under color of official right, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1)) in filing fees from me, a seaman, a ward of the Admiralty (28 U.S.C. § 1916) and $393.00 in PACER Docket Access Fees.

I have exhausted all available remedies to get the money back. I have been negotiating with the US Marshals Service over the Law of Citizen's Arrest of the offending judges to avoid tge threat of arrest by the US Marshals Service on charges of kidnapping, hostage taking, and assault even though I have probable cause evidence of a felony committed by federal judges under DC Code § 23-583 Arrest Without Warrant by Other Persons (Citizen's Arrest) and Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION & STATUTORY RIGHTS AS PROVIDED BY FEDERAL LAWS

CONFLICT OF FEDERAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES

What can you do when federal judges violate your statutory right and that that statutory right has bo expkicit provision for a private right of action? Would such a statutory right imply a private right of action?

In my case for the Seamen's Suit Law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916, there is no explicit private right of action. The Seamen's Suit Law is unforceable. The federal judges refuse to rule on my motions before dismissing my cases these past 6 years. Push is coming to shove with the US Marshals Service over my Citizen's Arrest Warrant for fe
eral judges. I am making one last attempt to get members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and their Subcommittees to intervene before I force the US Marshals Service's hand by following through with my Citizen's Arrest Warrant.

If the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decide to accept my human rights petition for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the media asks me for interviews I will slam the NRA & SAF for their political prejudice and bigotry against a Second Amendment case that they did not initiate, just as they had displayed their hypocritical bigotry with the Parker and Heller cases.

I may very well be the underdog in Second Amendment case but my Second Amendment case fights fort the constitutional norm of gun rights even though it is not the social norm or the legal norm.

I will NOT back down! For the last 6 years I have had no enforceable rights as an unrepresented civil plaintiff. If I cannot enforce my rights as an unrepresented civil plaintiff maybe I can enforce my rights as a criminal defendant.

Do you want evidence of tne NRA wanting to prolong the fight over the Second Amendment because it will prolong their political and financial existence because they are dependent upon a vibrant anti-Second Amendment front? Try this on for size:

Turns out that the National Rifle Association didn’t just endorse U.S. Rep. John Barrow.

The gun group is also backing that other embattled white Democrat, Jim Marshall of Macon.

Marshall’s office just shipped us the letter.

John Stone, who’s running against Barrow in the 12th District race, disagrees with the assessment below, which characterized the NRA endorsement as “a significant blow” to the Republican’s campaign.
Stone wrote the following this afternoon:

”’A significant blow’? Hardly. Everyone involved in this race fully expected the NRA to endorse Barrow from the start, as they search for token Democrats to counter charges the organization favors Republicans.

“Gun rights supporters know full well that a vote for Barrow is a vote for Nancy Pelosi’s anti-gun agenda, and for Barack Obama’s plan to overturn the recent landmark Heller decision with far-left Supreme Court appointments. Barrow publicly supports both Pelosi and Obama.

“Real Second Amendment voters see this as a “significant blow” against the NRA’s political credibility.”

(NO FREE SPEECH NOR FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY FOR THOSE WITH DISSENTING OPINIONS FROM SAF AGENDA)

SAF is blinded by their own political agenda even when it conflicts with the Holy Grail of the Second Amendment constitional norm of National Open Carry Handgun and they threaten and hold grudges against those holding dissenting opinions in defense of true Second Amendment rights.

SAF EMAILED RESPONSE TO MY REGISTRATION FOR THEIR 2007 GRPC:

Date: Thursday, March 15, 2007

From: Eva Hart,
Second Amendment Foundation

To: Don Hamrick

Subject: GRPC Attendance

Mr. Hamrick,

Since in the past you felt it necessary to file suit against us, we do not extend an invitation to you for attendance to the Gun Rights Policy Conference.

This Article proposes a speech-based right of court access. First, it finds the traditional due process approach to be analytically incoherent and of limited practical value. Second, it contends that history, constitutional structure, and theory all support conceiving of the right of access as the modern analogue to the right to petition government for redress. Third, the Article explores the ways in which the civil rights plaintiff's lawsuit tracks the behavior of the traditional dissident. Fourth, by way of a case study, the essay argues that recent restrictions - notably, a congressional limitation on the amount of fees counsel for prisoners may recover - violates the right of access to the courts.

Why Societies Need Dissent

By Cass R. Sunstein

Harvard University

Harvard Law School

Harvard University Press, September 2003

Abstract:

This book discusses social influences on individual behavior and the risk of error stemming from conformity. Special attention is given to three phenomena: individual conformity to erroneous positions held by group members; informational and reputational cascades; and group polarization, by which individuals end up in a more extreme position in line with their predeliberation tendencies. Applications include legal precedent; terrorism; the effects of largely unenforced law; jury behavior; judicial behavior on panels; free speech; and affirmative action. New data, discussing how judicial votes are affected by judicial colleagues, attests to the pervasiveness of conformity and group polarization. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests the importance of individual disclosure and dissent to prevent errors by a wide range of social groups.
Note: This is a description of the book and not an actual excerpt.

===

Privatizing Public Forums to Eliminate Dissent

By Kevin O'Neill

Cleveland State University - Cleveland-

Marshall College of Law

Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 06-128

October 17, 2006

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=935146

Abstract:

The First Amendment provides vigorous protection for public protest - so long as the protester takes up position in a traditional public forum. But the list of traditional public forums is a short one. It is essentially confined to public parks, squares, streets, and sidewalks. When given the opportunity to expand that list, the Supreme Court has consistently refused. Now, at the dawn of a new century, our traditional public forums are threatened by two different trends. First, they face increasing obsolescence as a platform for reaching one's fellow citizens. Fifty years ago, taking up position on a public square would have been an ideal way to gather signatures or pass out leaflets. But today, our traditional public forums are less and less the crossroads of the community, less and less the setting where we encounter our fellow citizens on foot. For most Americans, the scene of our daily activity has shifted from publicly-owned to privately-owned spaces, like shopping malls, where the First Amendment does not apply. This problem is compounded by a second trend: governmental efforts to divest a public square, park, street, or sidewalk of its status as a traditional public forum.

While you may have a case, using someone else's blog for your grievances is bad form and makes me want to read your screed even less. That you have near-zero readership is a) telling and b) no reason to use someone else's blog to promote yours.

I have near-zero readership because I do not post updates for weeks or months lately because I have no active cases in the courts because I have gone broke from unemployment.

Jackassed like you would rather kill the messenger than do or say something constructive.

All of my posts here were in dissent to and a rebuttal to David Hardy's post about the SAF GRPC. So what if it coincided with my agenda. That is what the COMMENT feature of blogs are all about. The is what FREEDOM is all about!

No one has the right not to be offended by honest and truthful exercise of free speech!

It would be censorhip only if I had the power to actually delete your messages. And even then, since this isn't your blog, it wouldn't be that either.

That you don't post updates to your blog is YOUR problem, nobody else's. There are plenty of other items on which you could write, to gather a following. Instead, you post weeks or months apart? I wouldn't follow you either.

Finally, I have as much right to be offended by whatever I wish, as you have to be offended that I might have been offended.

People like you who are more interested in attacking people rather than the problem at hand (i.e. the loss of Second Amendment rights) only prolong the problem.

I do not have the time nor the feasibility to post updates to my blog on a daily basis. That is not a problem for me because I am pursuing other problems that require me to constantly travel the interstates to visit Washington, DC and other people and places.

Again, I reiterate, my blog is only intended to post developments in my Second Amendment cases, I fact you overlooked in your desire to find fault with me. Can you say, "prejudiced."

Your DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT not to be offended. Such a right would preclude my RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH from writing about topics on a pre-ordained list of forbidden topics. That is a ludicrous position for you to take. You have the CHOICE to be "offended" as the effect of free speech. Most people do not understand that.

Dissent may very well be politically offensive free speech (i.e., certain positions on particular topics of the day) and it will always offend some people as it has apparently offended you judge by your personal insults directed at me.

QUOTATIONS ON DISSENT

"The oppression of any people for opinion's sake has rarely had any other
effect than to fix those opinions deeper, and render them more important."
Hosea Ballou (1771-1852).

"Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is
dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find
criticism subversive." Henry Steele Commager
(1902-1998), FREEDOM AND ORDER, 1966.

"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough;
there needs protection against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and
feeling, against the tendency of society to impose,
by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of
conduct on those who dissent from them." John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), ON
LIBERTY, 1859.

"There are men - now in power in this country - who do not respect dissent,
who cannot cope with turmoil, and who believe that the people of America are
ready to support repression as long as it is
done with a quiet voice and a business suit." John V. Lindsay, Speech,
University of California, 2 April 1970.

"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it." Aristotle (384-322 B.C.).

"The dissenting opinion has continued since 1792 as a great American
tradition. It is as true to the character of our democracy as of speech
itself." William Orville Douglas

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists
and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As
their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"In a number of cases dissenting opinions have in time become the law" -
Charles Evans Hughes quotes (American jurist and statesman. 1862-1948)

"Acceptance of dissent is the fundamental requirement of a free society."
Anonymous

LOL. I never said that you should be censored...and I *would* never say that. I said using someone elses blog to post your grievances was poor form...because it's YOUR fault, and YOURS alone, that you have no readership.

It is not my "fault" that I have few readers because I do not pursue a large readership like the "big guns" such as David T. Hardy. My blog is primarily a "REPOSITORY" for my court documents. Let that sink in.

I am not lodging my grievances on David Hardy's blog. I am provided a dissenting opinion to SAF Gun Rights Policy Conference to which David Hardy promited.

YOU WROTE: ". . . using someone else's blog for your grievances is bad form and makes me want to read your screed even less" IS suggestive of censorship.